From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Jytdog was indef blocked after an Arbitration motion. This makes the AE moot. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Jytdog[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Gwern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Jytdog violating GMO topic ban and harassing users

First, User:Jytdog was, other incidents, topic banned in December 2015 by Arbcom:

"Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted."

This lifetime ban appears to stand since I can find no information on the Arbcom page about an appeal or it being lifted.

Since then, he has repeatedly deleted content from He Jiankui, AfDed 'designer baby', edited Assisted reproductive technology/Mitochondrial replacement therapy/Human germline engineering/Gene therapy/Synthetic lethality/CRISPR/genetic engineering/Lulu and Nana - and that's in just the past week! (I have not tried to review all 3 years, but I suspect he has edited many other off-limits articles.) Diffs:

These are clearly GMO-related articles, narrowly interpreted; for example, the FDA has regulatory power over human gene therapy and germline engineering (such as He Jiankui's CRISPR babies) precisely because the results are legally defined as GMOs, and the main application of CRISPR currently is making agricultural GMOs. 'Broadly interpreted', they are even more clearly GMO-related. In addition, someone who has earned a lifetime topic ban should go above and beyond in avoiding the behavior that resulted in the Arbcom case and strive to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety.

Jytdog's response was to deflect and redefine his topic ban as narrowly as possible, double down on his behavior, and dare me to take it here:

"Please play the ball, not the man. My TBAN is on ag biotech, not this sort of thing...The locus of the case was ag biotech. I have been regularly editing human gene therapy and related topics and you are the first person to make drama over this. In any case, WP:AE is thataway. What you are doing here, is really inappropriate. I won't be responding to you further."

Second, Jytdog has engaged in unacceptable harassing behavior.

Jytdog and I have never interacted before and have no history, but when I criticized the justifications he made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designer baby (2nd nomination) of designer babies being 'sci fi' which don't exist and so not worthy of an article (pointing out the existence not just of He Jiankui's CRISPR babies but a long history of selection on optional traits, ongoing contemporary applied & research projects, and many imminent technologies widely expected in the future, all of which he appears to be ignorant of), his response was to look at my contributions and AfD not one but two of my articles, which I have worked on for years, on the grounds that they are too good for WP. His response?

"I am sorry you feel that it is hostile."

This is an unacceptable way to respond to criticism, and it is especially unacceptable as it is done while flagrantly breaking a lifetime topic ban.

Jytdog has announced his retirement (after apparently yet another, unrelated to this case, instance of poor judgment), but I feel his past behavior still deserves some scrutiny. --Gwern (contribs) 17:17 4 December 2018 (GMT)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Jytdog[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Jytdog[edit]

Statement by Doc James[edit]

Human cases of genetic modification I would view separately from the GMO topic. But at this point it is really mute. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said, human GMOs are GMOs in every way, legally, biologically, and practically, there's no way to claim that the CRISPR article is human-only which is a 100% clearcut violation of his topic ban, and even if they were not, Arbcom specifically said to interpret it broadly. It is not a moot point because the decision has not been made & is still being discussed, the proposed remedy allows him to come back at some point, and it would not condemn his bad behavior in this case. --Gwern (contribs) 17:55 4 December 2018 (GMT)
No not legally. Different laws apply to humans. Also culturally very different. One does not say vet med and medicine are the same profession. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Excelse[edit]

Just noting that I have no dog in this dispute and only came here to fix the report which was filed in a malformed manner. Excelse (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]

CRISPR, gene editing, etc. generally do not fall under the classification of GMO. That topic area is reserved for insertion of genes like transgenesis, not editing. GMO can be a nebulous term for those not familiar with its use, but that's in part why gene editing is preferred nomenclature in this particular topic. The ArbCom case was pretty clear on making the DS and sanctions fall within agricultural related topics if you dig into the arb discussions. Either way, I recall this coming up before and the topic not being a problem at all in terms of the GMO santcions, though I'd have to dig for the specific AE or ANI where it came up later on if this doesn't get withdrawn.

As Doc James said, it's pretty moot at this point. Considering the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior Gwern has exhibited in the mentioned AfDs and talk pages. (inability to WP:FOC, sniping at editors on content discussion pages, etc.) this does look like a tendentious filing where they'd be risking a boomerang for pursuing battleground behavior. It's probably better and more expedient if this was withdrawn at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Just a brief statement to say that I agree that "GMO" as commonly understood does not cover CRISPR, so the diffs provided were not violations of Jytdog's topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn[edit]

While likely moot I would just like to say that the topic ban was broadly construed and that would cover CRISPR, gene therapy and gene editing. He should not have been editing in this topic area if he was still banned. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Jytdog[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • As filed, the request is not actionable because it does not contain diffs. Additionally, Jytdog wrote on their user page: "I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." In view of this, I am of the view that this request should be closed without action, but that it may be refiled (properly, with diffs) should Jytdog nonetheless return to editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 18:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for adding the diffs. Nonetheless, at WP:RFAR, a motion effectively banning Jytdog is about to pass, which is why I am still of the view that this is likely moot. Sandstein 18:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta[edit]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed 
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by SonofSetanta[edit]

I would like to appeal for the removal of an ArbCom decision some years ago to ban me from editing articles related to the Northern Ireland Troubles as a result of violation of Wikipedia guidelines on editing such articles. I have no particular motive for making my request at this time. I've noted that a number of more level headed and well informed editors have improved articles I worked on and believe that Wikipedia has taken appropriate action to moderate the behaviours of some whose idea of balance I took issue with.

There will be no mass editing by me as a result of a successful appeal. My history will show I have continued to assist in the improvement of Wikipedia on a small scale in the intervening time but have distanced myself from anything controversial.

I put it to you that I am a valuable editor who just didn't have the common sense to know when to stop over certain matters. Experience has begotten a wisdom I didn't have when I joined Wikipedia and age has calmed me down.

SonofSetanta (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein[edit]

Thank you for the opportunity and thank you for taking the trouble to set my appeal out for me. I was unaware you were the banning party.

I have no plans to edit anything at the moment, Troubles related or otherwise. Wikipedia was a very big part of my life for a long time and I believe I became obsessed. Since the ban I have largely confined myself to improving articles when I have noticed inaccuracies, spelling mistakes, missing citations etc. My intention would be to continue this policy. The biggest bone of contention for me was the Ulster Defence Regiment article. I joined Wikipedia specifically to improve it and remove what I perceived as bias; partly because of my specialist knowledge of the subject. I was unprepared for the reaction I got and I hadn't developed the skills and patience to deal with what transpired. I believe I have those qualities now, at least to a much greater extent than back then. That article is now pretty well balanced and I rarely look at it although I do refer others to it.

I note comments from interested parties below and am pleased to address those concerns: My previous identities are declared on my home page and have been for several years; a reflection on my improving attitude towards the wiki I would suggest. My major interests are military history and Irish history but I have a third level education (an HND in keyboard technology and a degree in history) and am knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects as my posting history shows.

I believe it is necessary to point out the difficulties surrounding editing Troubles articles when I joined and in many subsequent years. Although I have done no serious research on the subject prior to submitting my appeal what I have seen leads me to believe that the situation is calmer now as a result of various adjudications.

I should also bring to the attention of interested parties the difficulties I had concerning copyright of images. I did feel aggrieved as I felt there were no concerns about anything uploaded by me. Initially I searched through my own photographic collection and provided fresh scans and negative images to Wikipedia proving my ownership of the files. After a short time however I became disillusioned and stopped responding. I don't believe I have uploaded an image since then.

In a final statement I believe it is my behaviour over the last 5 years+ which merits the lifting of the ban. I pulled back and didn't make any further fuss.

I'd like to thank everyone involved for giving me the time of day, regardless of the outcome.

SonofSetanta (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

  • Note that I have reformatted this originally very malformed appeal, but it will still be closed shortly if the missing information (including a link to the sanction being appealed) and notification diff is not provided. Sandstein 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved from the results section, Sandstein 07:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've moved the above here because I initially didn't recognize that this was an appeal against a sanction by me.
Since the ban in August of 2013, SonofSetanta has made relatively few edits. I invite them to describe the edits they intend to make in the Troubles topic area if the topic ban is lifted. Sandstein 07:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My views on lifting the ban are similar to those of Salvio giuliano below. In the end, I still recommend not lifting the ban at this time until we see some more competent, conflict-free editing in other topic areas. In particular, the startling lack of technical competence exhibited by SonofSetanta in making this appeal (check their recent contributions) indicates that they are probably better suited to editing in topic areas that are not particularly challenging to work in. Sandstein 09:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley[edit]

Support You seem to have run afoul of Werieth (talk · contribs). I see that as no slight on any editor here, so I would support the removal of your restrictions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta[edit]

I've added the diff to what I believe is the original AE thread placing the TBAN. As Sandstein appears to have been the placing admin and has already commented here, I'm declining to notify them again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on whether removing the topic ban will be beneficial to Wikipedia, but I'd point out that for a few years after the TB, they were fairly active, but that's not been the case more recently. This year, they've made 11 article edits, last year (2017) they made 6, and there were 6 in 2016. This would raise the possibility that they don't have substantial interests outside of the topic banned subject area, and if the ban was lifted, they're very likely to be an active editor in the area of The Troubles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought appeals were supposed to be posted at WP:ARCA? -- GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The pink "Important Information" box says that one of the uses of AE is to "appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators." The collapse box a little farther down, titled "Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions" says:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages... The editor may:

     1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
     2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
     3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm not going to be any part of the decision either way on this, but I assume this is what's being appealed. Reviewing admins should also be aware of the history of SoS's previous incarnations ([2], [3]). ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that, after the ban, SonofSetanta has made so few edits gives me pause, because, generally, that is how an editor shows that he has learnt from his mistakes and proves that he can make edits in a collegial fashion even concerning topics he has strong feelings about. And in the light of SonofSetanta's colourful track record, the need to show that he has learnt is, in my opinion, especially strong. On the other hand, this is an area for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and, so, topic bans and blocks can be reimposed swiftly (and without much discussion, if need be), which makes me think that we can take a chance. So, basically, I'm still on the fence, but I'm not outright opposed to lifting the sanction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I would decline this for the reasons Salvio mentions above. Without an edit history post-TBAN, it's challenging to examine whether SonofSetanta will be able to edit in that topic area without new issues arising. For me, I'd need more 'good behavior' to look at to feel comfortable lifting this. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I, too, would decline the appeal at this time. For us to consider an appeal, the appealing user has to show that they have been able to work constructively in areas not covered by their sanction. This user has not done so, and at their present activity level, is not going to be able to do so for a while. Vanamonde (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)